Nuclear tension rises on divided Korean peninsula<\/p>\n
Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
\nCentre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
\nJakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id<\/p>\n
A frightening scenario on the divided Korean peninsula cast a
\nshadow over the world, as North Korea continued to resist
\npressures from the United States and its Asian allies that it put
\na complete halt to its nuclear program. North Korea has announced
\nthat it is pulling out of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
\nWeapons treaty, possibly paving the way for the secretive state
\nto begin mass-producing nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n
The announcement means that under international law, there is
\nnothing to prevent North Korea from re-activating a controversial
\nnuclear plant at Yongbyon and producing materials for nuclear
\nweapons. Whether the North Korean leaders will persist in their
\npolicy actually depends on how the world, especially the United
\nStates, reacts.<\/p>\n
Why is North Korea raising the stakes now, when the world is
\ncampaigning to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world's
\narsenals? It is difficult to tell, because Pyongyang and its
\nmercurial leader Kim Jong-il act in erratic and contradictory
\nways. It seems possible that North Korea is using its nuclear
\nissue as a hard-line ploy to negotiate a non-aggression pact and
\nimproved economic aid with the United States.<\/p>\n
The paranoid North Korea may have also decided that the United
\nStates intends to attack it anyway and has thus decided to ready
\nits defense while the United States is preoccupied with Iraq. The
\ndanger of a nuclear war on the divided peninsula is perhaps also
\ndue to the "criminal" policy of the United States towards North
\nKorea, a policy that has fueled the nationalist sentiment of the
\nNorth Koreans.<\/p>\n
Thus, the strategy game on the Korean peninsula is not only
\nbeing played out between the United States and North Korea, but
\nalso between the world and North Korea, assuming that the issue
\nis raised to the Security Council. But it is the same old game
\nthat had occupied the minds of the world community previously,
\nwho worried that the continuation of sanctions on North Korea by
\nthe United States would lead them to initiate a full-scale war.<\/p>\n
The United States' Asian allies, such as Japan and South
\nKorea, are also part of the game. These two countries face the
\npossibility of heightened security risks if North Korea develops
\nits nuclear arsenal unchecked. Both Japan and South Korea had put
\nforward proposals that the United States be more prudent in its
\nmeasures against Pyongyang.<\/p>\n
One of these was a proposal that the North give up its nuclear
\nweapons ambitions in exchange for the United States' promising to
\nresume its shipments of fuel oil, to support the country until
\nits energy problems were solved. This might also include a pledge
\nfrom the United States not to attack North Korea. Although the
\nconditions of this proposal fall short of the non-aggression pact
\nNorth Korea demands, it might meet the need of North Koreans in
\nterms of providing reassurances for their future.<\/p>\n
The United States, for one, is unlikely to compromise on this,
\ngiven its current stand towards the regime in Pyongyang. It is
\nassumed that the U.S. position is that the ball is in the North
\nKoreans' court. Thus, the nuclear standoff between North Korea
\nand the U.S. will continue indefinitely.<\/p>\n
Although North Korea's nuclear program may really be a
\ndiplomatic gambit designed to extract economic and political
\nconcessions, no one can really ascertain the North's true
\nintentions; and if it decided to build a nuclear stockpile as the
\nU.S. alleges, then a more a dangerous confrontation on the Korean
\npeninsula would be unavoidable.<\/p>\n
If this is the case, there are very good reasons for the
\ninternational community to be worried. Arms proliferation does
\nmatter, especially when such weapons of mass destruction fall
\ninto the hands of secretive and unpredictable regimes which may
\nwell be heading to a catastrophic failure. Experts believe that
\nthe North Korean system is in terminal decline, and its people
\nsuffer great poverty and recurring famines. How the regime
\nconcludes matters and manages this potential crisis is made
\nharder if it has nuclear weapons. There is also the danger that
\nan unstable regime could provide such weaponry to third parties.
\nFacts indicate that North Korea already has a bad track-record in
\nthe proliferation of missile technology.<\/p>\n
The ongoing nuclear crisis would certainly have negative
\nimpacts on the stability and security of the Asian region as a
\nwhole. Indonesia regretted the heated situation in East Asia
\nfollowing North Korea's decision to pull out of the Nuclear Non-
\nProliferation Treaty, and made calls on the country and its
\nbickering U.S. counterpart to end the standoff amicably.
\nIndonesia's position is that the region be freed from nuclear
\nconfrontation. This is the kind of response that Indonesia and
\nperhaps other members of ASEAN could also show, to express their
\napprehension of the possible effects of the dangerous ongoing
\ntrend on the peninsula.<\/p>\n
Unlike Southeast Asia, East Asia lacks a regional organization
\nthat could be relied upon to solve regional conflicts. Bilateral
\nmechanisms will be the main option in bringing regional conflicts
\nto an end. It is assumed that the U.S.-North Korea nuclear crisis
\nwill be solved through such a mechanism, but international
\npressure on the involved countries is still necessary if the
\ncrisis is to be solved peacefully.<\/p>\n
The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) may have a chance to offer its
\nthoughts on how the crisis could be resolved peacefully, given
\nthe fact that North Korea and the United States are both members
\nof the forum. Perhaps it is through such a framework that ASEAN
\ncould take its best diplomatic shot to help find a solution.
\nThough an ARF emergency meeting to discuss the crisis might not
\nbe a rational option at this moment, the current nuclear crisis
\nshould teach the forum that in future, the forum should include
\nhigh-risk political issues, such as the current crisis, into its
\nregional agenda.<\/p>\n
There are always opportunities for Asia-Pacific regional
\norganizations such as the ARF to play a key role in helping to
\nsolve whatever crises might arise in the future. Given ARF's
\ncurrent performance record, however, many doubt that countries,
\nparticularly the "major" ones, will use the forum to discuss
\nissues.<\/p>\n
No one really knows when the nuclear crisis on the Korean
\npeninsula will come to an end, considering the fact that both the
\nU.S. and North Korea have not moved from their current positions.<\/p>\n
The longer the crisis continues, the greater the threat to
\nregional security, especially if other countries decide that they
\nalso need nuclear weapons to counter the North Korean threat.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/nuclear-tension-rises-on-divided-korean-peninsula-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}